What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Still, as you would probably say, no proof. The evidence is not proof. Some may claim it's proof, that it's true demonstrating evolution, but there is nothing to back it up literally as if it just happened. There are fossils. There are time elements. None of that is demonstrating that evolution by natural selection happened. It demonstrates that there were living organisms that are dead.

How many more times more must you be informed of the fact that science deals in evidence and not proof?
If your "argument" against evolution is that there is no "proof", then you are not just arguing against evolution. Then you are arguing against all of science.

The theory is conjecture, not insofar as chemistry or genetics, but as the theory of evolution goes.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Viruses remain viruses no matter how many times they mutate. They still remain viruses.

How many more times must you be informed of the fact that if species X would produce anything other then species X, or subspecies thereof (which would remain X), evolution theory would be falsified?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Alternative model such as what? The facts do contradict the theory. Because -- There are no facts that support the theory despite scientists trying to fit pieces in and make it true, and it's as if it were a game to put pieces of the puzzle in a frame with lots of unmatched pieces and parts that just aren't there at all. whatever if you say so. Have a good one. None of you have shown/proved/evidenced anything about life evolving from -- the possibility that a few molecules appeared and grew into various substances. The proof of no proof is absolute. It's not there. Fossils are there. Viruses are there. They are proof that they're there, unless you want to play the semantics game. But, like another poster implied, you weren't there before you were conceived.

Let's try something.


If humans and chimps share ancestors, then this should be apparant in their DNA.
Since DNA is inherited by off spring, they should fall into a hierarchical pattern (just like the DNA of you and your sibling in contrast to the DNA of your parents).

ERV's are virusses that have settled into the genome and which are inherited by off spring.

So, these two things combined, make a testable prediction.

If humans and chimps share ancestors and are more closely related, then they should share more ERV's then humans with any other species.

When we look for ERV's in any of the fully sequenced genomes of all species of which that data is available, we find that humans indeed share more ERV's with chimps then with any other species.


Explain how this is not evidence in support of humans being closely related to chimps through a common ancestor.


After all, the theory is there and it makes a testable prediction.
And when we test the prediction, it checks out.

How is that not evidence in support of the model making the prediction?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

lol, I don't see the "piles of evidence," even though dinosaur fossils and that called humanoid fossils are said to have evolved.

I know you don't. I never see anything I really don't look at. There are 200,000 scientific papers published on evolution annually and they use the evidence you do not see and report more evidence you do not see. If you search for evolution in a literature database like Google Scholar, you get over 6.4 million hits for papers citing the evidence you don't see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Juries receive evidence. Sometimes the juries are prejudiced, sometimes the lawyers lie, sometimes the accused lies, and sometimes the jury makes the wrong decision, based on -- you guessed it --

Of course, and because of the existence of that fact, you can dismiss evidence and valid conclusions without really reviewing any of it. The same reasoning could be used for any religion too. Anything for that matter. Doubt doesn't even have to be real. Just exploit a gap and insecurity.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, but! the process is too incredible to think/believe it came about by -- evolution. (Kind of by itself. although I think someone will say, "Oh, no, it's not 'by itself.'" -- whatever --) Sorry.

But it *does* happen by itself on a developmental level. Why not on a species level? Especially when we can compare different species and how their embryos form into individuals and see where mutations would give the differences.

You all can say whatever you want per scientists' theories about dinosaurs becoming birds, but again -- like the cell developing into you or someone else, it doesn't add up to evolution.

Actually, it is precisely evolution. Species changing over time and aquiring new characteristics in the process. That is evolution.

Because that's how "you" say you got here, more or less. Now why? Because it doesn't make sense and no scientist can show it does make sense.

Whether or not it 'makes sense' to you, it is what the evidence points to. The universe need not make sense, especially if you have not been trained to reason about how it works.

There are many, many things in the universe that don't make sense at first. That is not a problem with the universe, but rather a problem with our ability to keep an open mind and figure out what really happens.

Even if they publish tomes of literature with examination saying it DOES make sense. So -- with all that being said -- have it as you will -- I'm leaving it there.

Have you actually looked at the evidence? Have you done some comparative anatomy? Have you compared the fossils of early birds, modern birds, and therapod dinosaurs?

Saying something doesn't make sense is simply a failure on your part if you haven't really looked at the evidence and thought about why you have the intuitions you do.

 

[Polymath257]

It convinces you that life just came about without a primary source of intelligence. (shrug.) It -- just -- happened that way by means of -- natural selection.

Why would a source of intelligence be required? And what doesn't mutation and natural selection explain?

 

[Polymath257]

Still, as you would probably say, no proof. The evidence is not proof. Some may claim it's proof, that it's true demonstrating evolution, but there is nothing to back it up literally as if it just happened. There are fossils. There are time elements. None of that is demonstrating that evolution by natural selection happened. It demonstrates that there were living organisms that are dead. The theory is conjecture, not insofar as chemistry or genetics, but as the theory of evolution goes.

And it also shows that over time those species change. And that *is* evolution. If you go back 500 million years, there are no mammals at all. There are no birds. There are no reptiles, no amphibians. There *are* aquatic animals, but no bony fish. There are no flowering plants.

If you go back to 150 million years ago, there were dinosaurs, but no large mammals. No elephants, no humans, no camels, no tigers, etc. There were no flowering plants, no grass. This was right about the time of the very first birds.

If you go back to 50 million years ago, there were no dinosaurs. There were mammals, but they were generally small. There were no humans, no camels, no elephants, no tigers, no bears. But there were small horses with toes.

This change in the species alive *is* evolution: the change of biological species over geologic time. Natural selection is one proposed mechanisms that is consistent with most of what we have discovered.

Yes, these species lived and died. But when they lived and died is relevant to knowing how the species changed over time. And they did. And that is evolution.

 

[F1fan]

Still, as you would probably say, no proof. The evidence is not proof.

You are playing word games here. You say this as if you are a hard line skeptic, but you aren't. You have adopted an implausible religious view that not only has NO evidence, but is inconsistent with the evidence we do have. The conclusion of the evidencee is evolution. There is nothing to support your belief in creationism.

Some may claim it's proof, that it's true demonstrating evolution, but there is nothing to back it up literally as if it just happened. There are fossils. There are time elements. None of that is demonstrating that evolution by natural selection happened. It demonstrates that there were living organisms that are dead. The theory is conjecture, not insofar as chemistry or genetics, but as the theory of evolution goes.

None of this is relevant. We defer to experts in science, not religious fanatics. Your refusal to accept results in science is NOT a valid position in debate. This only tells us something about you, it says nothing about the validity of evolution.

Viruses remain viruses no matter how many times they mutate. They still remain viruses.

Why wouldn't they? Viruses act as if nature operates without any moral guidance. If you creationists were right your God could change them from being deadly to being harmless. Your God does nothing, viruses continue to kill humans. The question to creationists is why your God created all these deadly things in the first place. Where is the intelligence is the design of these deadly organisms?

You have no answer. You creationists look at a cell or a daisy and say "Look at the intelligent design" but then when it's a cancer cell killing a three year old girl you have no answer why that design exists, or what it says about your beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, but! the process is too incredible to think/believe it came about by -- evolution. (Kind of by itself. although I think someone will say, "Oh, no, it's not 'by itself.'" -- whatever --) Sorry. You all can say whatever you want per scientists' theories about dinosaurs becoming birds, but again -- like the cell developing into you or someone else, it doesn't add up to evolution. Because that's how "you" say you got here, more or less. Now why? Because it doesn't make sense and no scientist can show it does make sense. Even if they publish tomes of literature with examination saying it DOES make sense. So -- with all that being said -- have it as you will -- I'm leaving it there.

Well, when you've got something more than a logical fallacy as your "argument" against the evidence, please be sure to let us know.
Arguments from personal incredulity aren't convincing and don't cut it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's absurd that non-experts believe they can question the work of experts in science.

This phenomenon came into clearer focus for me during the pandemic, with the anti-vaxxers. Here on RF, one said to me, "That's just your opinion" about the virus being more dangerous that the vaccine. I explained that it is more than an opinion, it is a demonstrable fact. This person uses the phrase critical thinking, but it turns out, doesn't know what it is or what it can do - how it is possible to know that something is correct. None of this made any impact. For this person, all opinions are equal, because they're all arrived at the same way - some form of guessing what to believe. It was at that point that I had an insight regarding the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which I had always understood as people elevating themselves without justification to the level of the knowing, was more correctly understood as not being aware that there is a higher level to achieve, that is, not overestimating himself but underestimating what others can do and know.

Relationships demonstrate similarities without interposing imaginary branches for phylogenetic trees.

Sure they do, even outside of biological evolution. Organize the religions of the world according to similarities into families of denominations, and you will have identified the equivalent of a family tree. Do the same with the languages, and you can identify groups of families (nested hierarchy) that indicates their evolutionary past:

Without DNA in fossils, all branches of the phy trees are conjectural

So what? Why do think that's relevant? My wife researched her family's genealogy, and it was incomplete. Should we doubt that that there is a family tree because it can't be reconstructed precisely?

Pasteur demonstrated against nonsense

Pasteur said nothing relevant to the abiogenesis hypothesis. Nobody believes that life on earth originated with mice emerging from straw or maggots from rotting meat. Pasteur disproved that hypothesis.

as biology uncovers increasing layers of cell complexity, abiogenesis claims will sound even more extreme.

Cellular complexity is not an argument against abiogenesis or any other aspect of natural "design." The ID people understood that, which is why they were in search of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, because other complexity only requires blind, iterative processes and time.

And how the science sounds to those who haven't learned or understood it is not relevant to the science.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

No, but it's not relevant, because science has no need of that hypothesis at this time, and won't until such time as a discovery is made that cannot be explained naturalistically.

That many of the assertions and/or posits of the scientific realm in favor of the theory of evolution are wayyy open to question.

Yes, but not the same questions we all have before we learn the existing answers. Those answers are not actively doubted. The theory of biological evolution is one such answer. The questions the evolutionary scientists grapple with are not the doubts creationists have. The theory is considered correct by the scientific community, and no other opinion matters to them - not even those of lay people like myself who agree that the evidence supports the theory. My opinion doesn't matter to them any more than any creationists. They don't debate lay people.

Ok it's articles like these that expect the reader to go along with what's written, because I was figuring how were atoms formed, and this came up.What is an Atom?

I can sympathize with you here. You don't have a foundation in science, and everything you read about requires that you go off and read more to understand that, and that requires you look elsewhere. You would need to understand subatomic physics to understand radiometric dating. You would need to understand atomic structure and nuclear fusion to understand nucleosynthesis. You would need to understand chemistry (reactions, catalysts) and biochemistry (nucleic acids, enzymes) to understand abiogenesis research, and also a little astronomy to understand how the oceans and some surface heavy metals arrived on earth. A little embryology and comparative anatomy is helpful in understanding evolution. It's all a single edifice understood as separate rooms (the various sciences) with connecting doorways, and it isn't until the edifice in its entirety begins to come into view that one can understand the individual rooms and their relationships to one another.

But it's to your credit that you are exploring. The best lessons are coming from RF posters. I don't think you consider them reliable sources of information, which is too bad, because these posts are full of useful information about what evidence is and how it should be interpreted, the place of proof in science, and some logical fallacies that you would be well advised to study, understand, and avoid making in the future. You've heard about the incredulity fallacy you commit, but not the special pleading one that generally accompanies it in religious discussions, where complexity needs a designer unless that complexity is a tri-omni god, in which case it needs no designer.

God is not a liar.

That's a problem for Christianity. As was already mentioned, if the theory of evolution is ever falsified, it will confirm intelligent design. What else is possible if nature didn't do that unsupervised? Unfortunately, the intelligent designer(s) would be recognized to be deceivers, and not necessarily supernatural, either. This is why I often say that the evidence supporting the theory already rules out the deity described in the Christian Bible even if the theory is falsified and an intelligent designer becomes the leading (and only) hypothesis

I believe the Bible when it says that it is spherical in shape

Ask yourself why. As far as I know, the earth is never called a sphere in scripture - just round in one place and suspended from nothing elsewhere - but it is called flat, fixed (immovable), on pillars, and with edges and corners, and covered with a turning dome - snow globe earth. So, you could have gone with flat and cornered or flat and circular, since the Bible also says that. How did you decide which model to support? Science. You're tacitly agreeing that science is the arbiter of such knowledge. The flat earthers have much to learn from you. And the anti-vaxxers. And the climate deniers.

Viruses remain viruses no matter how many times they mutate. They still remain viruses.

You probably consider that evidence against the theory. The theory predicts that. No creature is the parent of a different kind of creature. Only intelligent design could accomplish that, which would falsify the theory.

Yes, but! the process is too incredible to think/believe it came about by -- evolution.

For you. It wouldn't be if you had the knowledge that those writing to you possess. Obviously. Look at what they write.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This phenomenon came into clearer focus for me during the pandemic, with the anti-vaxxers. Here on RF, one said to me, "That's just your opinion" about the virus being more dangerous that the vaccine. I explained that it is more than an opinion, it is a demonstrable fact. This person uses the phrase critical thinking, but it turns out, doesn't know what it is or what it can do - how it is possible to know that something is correct. None of this made any impact. For this person, all opinions are equal, because they're all arrived at the same way - some form of guessing what to believe. It was at that point that I had an insight regarding the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which I had always understood as people elevating themselves without justification to the level of the knowing, was more correctly understood as not being aware that there is a higher level to achieve, that is, not overestimating himself but underestimating what others can do and know.



Sure they do, even outside of biological evolution. Organize the religions of the world according to similarities into families of denominations, and you will have identified the equivalent of a family tree. Do the same with the languages, and you can identify groups of families (nested hierarchy) that indicates their evolutionary past:

So what? Why do think that's relevant? My wife researched her family's genealogy, and it was incomplete. Should we doubt that that there is a family tree because it can't be reconstructed precisely?



Pasteur said nothing relevant to the abiogenesis hypothesis. Nobody believes that life on earth originated with mice emerging from straw or maggots from rotting meat. Pasteur disproved that hypothesis.



Cellular complexity is not an argument against abiogenesis or any other aspect of natural "design." The ID people understood that, which is why they were in search of irreducible complexity and specified complexity, because other complexity only requires blind, iterative processes and time.

And how the science sounds to those who haven't learned or understood it is not relevant to the science.

Thank you for the detailed response but IMHO you have a false analogy. We know for a fact how languages and words and etymology can evolve. We have numerous problems with evolution where we have mostly deadly mutations, loss of information and not new information added, etc.

It's further a false analogy because I can create other similar trees (look! cars, boats and planes all have wheels!) which show shared functions but not direct descent. God made all carbon-based life forms with similar functions but the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences, not the thousands of differences that, say, evolve an old to a new spoken or written language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for the detailed response but IMHO you have a false analogy. We know for a fact how languages and words and etymology can evolve. We have numerous problems with evolution where we have mostly deadly mutations, loss of information and not new information added, etc.

Where did you get that idea from? Please demonstrate that most mutations are deadly or even cause a loss of information.

It's further a false analogy because I can create other similar trees (look! cars, boats and planes all have wheels!) which show shared functions but not direct descent. God made all carbon-based life forms with similar functions but the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences, not the thousands of differences that, say, evolve an old to a new spoken or written language.

No analogy is perfect. That does not make it false. They are learning tools. To be a false analogy a serious flaw must be demonstrated. Just claiming that it is false will not do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you for the detailed response but IMHO you have a false analogy. We know for a fact how languages and words and etymology can evolve.

We also know for a fact how biological species can and do evolve.

We have numerous problems with evolution where we have mostly deadly mutations, loss of information and not new information added, etc.

Nonsense.

It's further a false analogy because I can create other similar trees (look! cars, boats and planes all have wheels!) which show shared functions but not direct descent.

You can not.
Go ahead, try....

There's no hierarchy in those patterns.
For example, a new tech for engines is developed and suddenly it pops up in all models, as opposed to "just" the descendents of a specific model.

Take GPS for example. Suddenly it's build into cars as well as trucks and all others in between.
In biology this is not the case at all.

A feature that evolves in one species is only present in that species and its subspecies. Not on other parallel branches. This is why you won't find any mammals with feathers or amphibians with hair or reptiles with mammary glands.

The evolutionary tree of life is composed of nested hierarchies.
Manufactured product lines are NOT.

God made all carbon-based life forms with similar functions but the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences, not the thousands of differences that, say, evolve an old to a new spoken or written language.

The genetic differences between humans and the other great apes, and all other life forms for that matter, are hierarchical in nature.

They are composed of nested hierarchies.
Just like evolution theory predicts.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you for the detailed response but IMHO you have a false analogy. We know for a fact how languages and words and etymology can evolve. We have numerous problems with evolution where we have mostly deadly mutations, loss of information and not new information added, etc.

It's further a false analogy because I can create other similar trees (look! cars, boats and planes all have wheels!) which show shared functions but not direct descent. God made all carbon-based life forms with similar functions but the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences, not the thousands of differences that, say, evolve an old to a new spoken or written language.

No, we don't. That's just what creationist websites are telling you. They are based on misunderstandings and outdated science. They're old PRATTs that can be found here:
An Index to Creationist Claims


You'll need to demonstrate that "god made all carbon-based life form with similar functions ... , " rather than just asserting it. That's after you've demonstrated that some God exists in the first place.

 

[gnostic]

Thank you for the detailed response but IMHO you have a false analogy. We know for a fact how languages and words and etymology can evolve. We have numerous problems with evolution where we have mostly deadly mutations, loss of information and not new information added, etc.

It's further a false analogy because I can create other similar trees (look! cars, boats and planes all have wheels!) which show shared functions but not direct descent. God made all carbon-based life forms with similar functions but the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences, not the thousands of differences that, say, evolve an old to a new spoken or written language.

It is often creationists - whether they be YEC, OEC or ID creationists - who use false analogies, over the few centuries:

• The Watchmaker analogy
• Car analogy
• Computer analogy
• Computer programming or coding analogy
• The mousetrap analogy

These are all analogies made by humans, hence these are all man-made objects, watches, cars, computers, mousetraps, etc.

Creationists often used these analogies to denote some supernatural entities are responsible for CREATION or DESIGN of the “universe”, or of the “Solar System” or of “life”, and called the entity like God, Creator or Designer.

But while we can show evidence or prove that humans are actually physical beings that design and create, there are no evidence that God, Creator or Designer are real.

So the analogies used by creationists are ones of False Equivalence.

Humans as designers, creators or builders are real, God and whatever other titles you may call don’t exist, and no where can creationists demonstrate that any god “created” the universe, or our star - the sun, our planet, Earth, or any life.

The differences between sciences and religions, that science attempts to explain and to test what they explain of physical or natural phenomena without any supernatural phenomena or supernatural entities.

Religions, on the other hand, related on -

• nonexistent supernatural entities - eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, etc -
• and on equally nonexistent supernatural phenomena - eg magic, miracles, creation myths, afterlife, etc.

It is people who believe that god (supernatural) created everything (supernatural and natural), that have no evidence for what they believe in,

At least with hypothesis models of Abiogenesis don’t rely on anything supernatural. Abiogenesis based cells on organic compounds (or biological macromolecules), compounds and molecules that basically require knowledge in chemistry.

Genesis, on the other hand, say the first human was Adam, who was created from “dust of the ground”, which I would assume to be soil.

There are 3 types of soils:

1. sandy soil
2. silt
3. clay

All 3 types are basically made of MINERALS from rocks that have broken down to grain size (eg sand, silt) to powder (eg clay), most commonly silicate-type minerals, eg quartz (eg sand, silt), feldspar (eg silt) & mica (eg clay).

Silicates, whatever types they are, are non-living inorganic compounds. Silicates don’t exist in any part of any cell or any organic compounds that are found within cells (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates or lipids).

So what Genesis 2:7 described about creationism Adam being made of dust or soil is bullock.

No matter what you do with silicates, you cannot transform inorganic silicon-based compound into organic carbon-based compound.

If Genesis Creation was treated as an analogy, then Genesis Creation would be a “false analogy”.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is often creationists - whether they be YEC, OEC or ID creationists - who use false analogies, over the few centuries:

• The Watchmaker analogy
• Car analogy
• Computer analogy
• Computer programming or coding analogy
• The mousetrap analogy

These are all analogies made by humans, hence these are all man-made objects, watches, cars, computers, mousetraps, etc.

Creationists often used these analogies to denote some supernatural entities are responsible for CREATION or DESIGN of the “universe”, or of the “Solar System” or of “life”, and called the entity like God, Creator or Designer.

But while we can show evidence or prove that humans are actually physical beings that design and create, there are no evidence that God, Creator or Designer are real.

So the analogies used by creationists are ones of False Equivalence.

Humans as designers, creators or builders are real, God and whatever other titles you may call don’t exist, and no where can creationists demonstrate that any god “created” the universe, or our star - the sun, our planet, Earth, or any life.

The differences between sciences and religions, that science attempts to explain and to test what they explain of physical or natural phenomena without any supernatural phenomena or supernatural entities.

Religions, on the other hand, related on -

• nonexistent supernatural entities - eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, etc -
• and on equally nonexistent supernatural phenomena - eg magic, miracles, creation myths, afterlife, etc.

It is people who believe that god (supernatural) created everything (supernatural and natural), that have no evidence for what they believe in,

At least with hypothesis models of Abiogenesis don’t rely on anything supernatural. Abiogenesis based cells on organic compounds (or biological macromolecules), compounds and molecules that basically require knowledge in chemistry.

Genesis, on the other hand, say the first human was Adam, who was created from “dust of the ground”, which I would assume to be soil.

There are 3 types of soils:

1. sandy soil
2. silt
3. clay

All 3 types are basically made of MINERALS from rocks that have broken down to grain size (eg sand, silt) to powder (eg clay), most commonly silicate-type minerals, eg quartz (eg sand, silt), feldspar (eg silt) & mica (eg clay).

Silicates, whatever types they are, are non-living inorganic compounds. Silicates don’t exist in any part of any cell or any organic compounds that are found within cells (eg proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates or lipids).

So what Genesis 2:7 described about creationism Adam being made of dust or soil is bullock.

No matter what you do with silicates, you cannot transform inorganic silicon-based compound into organic carbon-based compound.

If Genesis Creation was treated as an analogy, then Genesis Creation would be a “false analogy”.

Hard for me to take you seriously since you've claimed omniscience:

"But while we can show evidence or prove that humans are actually physical beings that design and create, there are no evidence that God, Creator or Designer are real."

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hard for me to take you seriously since you've claimed omniscience:

"But while we can show evidence or prove that humans are actually physical beings that design and create, there are no evidence that God, Creator or Designer are real."

What's wrong with that statement, exactly?
Sounds true to me. And a statement that can be made without the need of omniscience.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We have numerous problems with evolution where we have mostly deadly mutations, loss of information and not new information added, etc.

The scientific community and the community of critical thinkers have no problem with evolution. Only the creationists do. The theory is correct.

It's further a false analogy because I can create other similar trees (look! cars, boats and planes all have wheels!) which show shared functions but not direct descent.

The machines didn't descend from one another, but the designs of the wheeled ones did (boats have wheels?). Wheeled conveyances and their wheels evolved over time from earlier wheeled conveyances, and their designs help us order them. Wheelbarrows may have been first. Then horses were added (chariots, carts, stagecoaches). Then pedals (bicycles), then steam engines (locomotives), and then cars and their descendants (trucks, tractors, ATVs, golf carts, roller coasters, Martian rovers). Wheels went from stone and wood to metal and rubber. That's evolution too, albeit like languages and religions, cultural rather than biological. Family resemblances allow one to generate a tree of wheeled technology. Airplanes are cars (powered, wheeled conveyances) with wings to lift them up.

Boats are a different phylum.

the genetic differences between people and apes is actually millions of differences, not the thousands of differences that, say, evolve an old to a new spoken or written language.

Is this meant to be an argument against biological evolution generating a tree of life? If so, it's not. The two are analogous. As the number of generations between two species increases, their genetic differences increase. With languages, the longer two languages evolve independently, the less alike they are. The differences help us decide how long ago they branched apart.

You'd help yourself a bit if you could learn that people are apes, or at the least that that is the scientific position. But you're a creationist. That rarely happens. I don't know why that's such an insurmountable impediment here. I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I can't learn what a theist believes and use language consistent with that. It happens whenever I use the word God or refer to the Christian afterlife or resurrection. I don't believe any of that any more than you believe evolutionary science, but why is it that I can speak to creationists in language compatible with their beliefs, but they rarely can do the same?